Gregory XVIII: Yet another means of deceiving the elect

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 17, 2014

© Copyright 2014, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Introduction

It is not surprising that generations raised on fairy tales might believe the Siri pope and his successor theory, but as St. Paul tells us, men put away the things of children when they mature. Obviously not, as the gullible souls willing to swallow the Siri theory demonstrate. There are numerous reasons for casting this foolish fable aside, namely because it is not and could never be Catholic. Having remained a practicing and functioning member for the Vatican 2 church long after the false council; having signed Vatican 2 council documents and celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae, this man, who never even exhibited any real sympathy for Traditionalists, presented as a heretic and schismatic.

Under Can. 2200 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law he would at least have been classified as deviating from the faith, a phrase found in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, on which this law is based. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he must be treated as a heretic/schismatic, unless and until, at some future date, a true pope decides his case. This would also automatically disqualify any alleged successor issuing from him. One cannot use a probable opinion concerning validity in determining questions involving the means for eternal salvation; this is the teaching of Bl. Pope Innocent XI, (DZ 1151).

Traditionalist “clergy” trade on providing all the means necessary to salvation, yet have failed to emphasize the fact that the first of these is subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Siri promoters are using this necessity to lure followers to their cause. The proof of this teaching is found in the following: “We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff,” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, DZ 469). To be subject to anyone, one must be certain he has the right to command and compel to obey. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote concerning the bishops: “If a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter…”

For as Rev. E. S. Berry who provided this quote states, “an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority; it commands neither obedience nor respect.”  The evidence proving the existence of grave doubt and canonical impossibility in this case was long ago presented and recently updated. It can be studied at: /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/errors-in-matters-of-faith-and-morals/why-guiseppe-siri-was-never-pope/, also at /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/

Most of the witnesses in this case are dead and reliable testimony is unavailable, only deepening the doubt in this situation. And yet already the Siri enthusiasts are running to accept yet another antipope in a long line of pretenders to the papal throne. But before they jump recklessly from the frying pan into the fire, perhaps a few words of caution from someone who has “been there” could make them rethink their position.

Necessity of canonical election and doubtful popes

As Rev. Berry states elsewhere in his work quoted above (The Church of Christ, 1910), once it appears the apostolic succession has been lost, it can only be regained “by a direct intervention from Christ.” And here Berry, joining others, admits that the Church could come to a pass where only a miracle would save Her. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in his De Concilio (ii, 19), “a doubtful pope is no pope” and no one is bound to obey him; he should be forced to resign. I once believed and stated that we should not wait for miracles, but should proceed to a papal election; at that time I thought I had found evidence indicating that the laity could elect a pope. A man we believed was able (barely) to be elected pope was actually elected, but this became a very trying situation when we realized that he was totally incapable of functioning as any kind of head for the Church and was never absolved from heresy pre-election. Later it was discovered that the laity are strictly forbidden to take any part whatsoever in papal elections and are excommunicated for doing so, and all who had participated in that election save one renounced the so-called “pope.”

This Siri successor situation is more dangerous because people have been led to believe, based on almost thin air, that a man who was never proven to have become a canonically elected pope was actually elected. And the intimation here is that he is the only one who could be considered a true pope because he descends from Pope Pius XII lineally. But NO PAPAL ELECTION is valid unless it is canonical and this is to be held as dogma, Msgr. J. C. Fenton says in his The Concept of Sacred Theology. That is, unless it conforms to all those norms laid down for validity by Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and canon law itself, it cannot be counted as a true election. Canon 147 clearly states that those electing or appointing anyone to office must truly be considered competent to do so, and this includes the cardinals who are to designate the man destined to receive Divine jurisdiction from Christ Himself. Do the feckless Traditionalists who hold that Siri was actually elected, based on no proof whatsoever, really believe that those cardinals who elected Siri were competent when they went on to recognize the Novus Ordo antipopes, participate in Vatican 2 and celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae? Do they not understand that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio condemns them as heretics prior to such an election, nullifying and voiding all their actions, if it later becomes apparent that they have held such heresies? No of course not; for having never been obedient to canon law to begin with, and Pope Pius XII tells us in his infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis that anyone claiming the name Catholic MUST obey such laws, they see no need to be obedient now.

Use of coercive tactics to retain supporters

Siri theorists, incapable of conducting their own research, have even been so bold as to selectively use the research developed on this site for decades to support their evil claims. They have been doing this since 1989, when they first realized they could not claim Siri was elected in 1963 after this author proved (in a series of articles and later a self-published book) that John 23 was a heretic, so was never validly elected; nor could the cardinals proceed to elect another “pope.”  But they are not presenting the whole story for those they are so cunningly attempting to mislead, because they are not following Canon Law as members of Christ’s Church are infallibly bound to do. Nor have they followed the scholastic method of St. Thomas Aquinas to present their proofs as the Church commands and therefore cannot be considered as ever presenting such proofs. Just as we were led to believe by the later pope-elect when promoting the election, the Siri successor promoters dangle as a carrot on a stick the promise to absolve from censures and provide jurisdiction, when this is a canonical impossibility. This is a cult tactic known as coercive persuasion, or as Pope Pius XII defines it in Ad Apostolorum Principis, “psychic persuasion,” as developed by the Chinese communists. It is a shameful attempt to gather moral and financial support for a mere theory presented as an accepted truth, according to popular opinion based on out and out fabrications.

This neglect of approved sources and true scholarship that contradicts the reasoning which leads to such fabrications was soundly condemned by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical, Humani Generis:

“17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.”

It is sheer absurdity to maintain that those who will not even follow the dictates of the continual magisterium throughout the ages and have defied all its principles and teachings to date could possibly determine that they May accept a man as pope while continuing to ignore these same binding principles. What binding papal teachings, also those produced by the theologians mentioned above have these clueless lay leaders promoting this travesty based their reasoning upon? What popes, what councils, what laws have they cited that grounds their belief that such a thing could ever happen outside the teachings of the Church Christ established on earth?!  The new philosophy they teach is that of the pre-eminence of human reason over the teachings of the Church; human determinations and “catholic sense” as opposed to scholastic theology. This has already been discussed in the second of the articles linked to betrayedcatholics website above. It is the undiluted Traditionalism of Augustine Bonnetty condemned by Pope Pius IX as a heresy in his “Qui pluribus,” (DZ 1649-52; the doctrines listed in Denzingers state the true teaching of the Church, as opposed to the false teaching spread by Bonnetty).

First of all it must be noted that no one can coerce Catholics into accepting such a doubtful man as pope by threatening them with the teaching that all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved, that in order for the Church’s indefectibility to remain intact a true pope must exist and/or that such a pontiff is necessary to remove censures of excommunication. As Rev. Berry teaches per St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching above: a doubtful pope is no pope. According to the opinions of seven different theologians, fulfilling the requirements of Can. 20 and the moral prerequisites for establishing true probability, “There is no schism involved…if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J, Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Of course one would need to offer valid reasons for such doubts, reasons provided elsewhere by this author, and they are readily available in this instance. Notice that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is a heretic or invalidly elected, (Can. 2200, taken from the old law, Cum ex…). Only doubt, NOT CERTITUDE that such a man is not pope, is required. In order to act in such a case, i.e., accept such a man as a true pope, moral theologians state, all doubts must be completely resolved, something that is impossible in this particular situation. Conclaves by their very nature are secret, and those participating in this conclave later proved themselves heretics. No reliable testimony could ever issue from such an event. Catholics do not need to worry that by not accepting such “popes,” they will endanger their souls, for the Church cannot and does not teach this, as demonstrated above.

Proofs to this effect can be found under Current Articles — The Binding Power of the Papacy Voids Traditionalist Acts — and will explain the true nature of indefectibility from Catholic teaching and the absolute necessity of certainly verified canonical election. Please also see the articles refuting attacks on the infallibility of Cum ex… as well as “The Truth About Papal Claims.” And for any who are in doubt about the Church’s views considering those who accept an antipope, please read the scathing condemnations of the Council of Florence:

The Council of Florence

The Council of Florence was held in Florence, Italy from 1438-1447. The Council was a continuation of the Council of Ferrara, and that council in turn was a continuation of the Council of Basel, in Switzerland. It was convoked in 1431 by Pope Martin V. Following Martin’s death, his successor Blessed Pope EugeneIV opened it and met open resistance from many of the bishops. Therefore he dissolved the Council, moving to Ferrara, Italy in 1438 because of the schismatic bishops who elected the antipope Felix V. Felix attempted to depose Eugene IV. While it appears he was a layman on election, the Catholic Encyclopedia says only that he was consecrated following his election in 1439. He then was excommunicated by Bd. Eugene IV.  In 1439 the bubonic plague forced the entire Council to move again, this time to Florence where it was closed eight years later in 1447 by Eugene IV. The following text is taken from the ninth session of the Council of Florence which condemned in session the antipope Felix V and demanded he cease and desist from all pretensions to the papacy.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum10.htm

“…Say with the psalmist: I will pursue my enemies and crush them, and I shall not return until I consume them. I shall consume and crush them and they will not rise; they will fall at my feet. For it is wrong that so wicked a deed and so detestable a precedent should be allowed to pass by disguised, lest perhaps unpunished daring and malice find an imitator, but rather let the example of punished transgressions deter others from offending.

[Concerning Amadeus aka Felix V and his bishop friends]: “They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ’, and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself.

“The leader and prince of these men and the architect of the whole nefarious deed was that first-born son of Satan, the most unfortunate Amadeus, once duke and prince of Savoy. He meditated this scheme for long. Several years ago, as is widely said, he was seduced by the trickery, sooth sayings and phantoms of certain unfortunate men and women of low reputation (commonly called wizards or witches or Waldensians and said to be very numerous in his country), who had forsaken their Saviour to turn backwards to Satan and be deceived by demonic illusions, to have himself raised up to be a monstrous head in God’s church. He adopted the cloak of a hermit, or rather of a most false hypocrite, so that in sheep’s clothing, like a lamb he might assume the ferocity of a wolf. Eventually he joined the people at Basel. By force, fraud, bribery, promises and threats he prevailed on the majority of those at Basel, who were subject to his sway and tyranny, to proclaim him as an idol and Beelzebub, the prince of these new demons, in opposition to your holiness, the true vicar of Christ and the undoubted successor of Peter in God’s church.

“Thus that most ill-starred Amadeus, a man of insatiable and unheard of greed, whom avarice (which, according to the Apostle, is the service of idols) has always blinded, was set up as an idol and like a statue of Nebuchadnezzar in God’s church by that most wicked synagogue, those offscourings of forsaken men, that shameful cesspool of all Christianity, from among whom certain heinous men, or rather demons hiding under the form of men, had been deputed as electors or rather as profaners. He himself, agitated by the furies of his own crimes and sinking into the depth of all evils, said after the manner of Lucifer: I will set my throne in the north and I shall be like the most High. He grasped with avid and detestable greed at the above-mentioned election, or rather profanation made of him, which he had earlier sought with intense fever of mind and anguish of heart. He did not shrink from adopting and wearing papal robes, ornaments and insignia, from behaving, holding himself and acting as Roman and supreme pontiff, and from having himself venerated as such by the people. Further, he was not afraid to write and despatch to many parts of the world letters which were sealed with a leaden seal after the manner of the Roman pontiffs. By these letters, in which he calls himself Felix even though he is the most unhappy of mortals, he tries to spread the poisons of his faction among the people of Christ.

“With the approval and help of this sacred ecumenical council, avenge with condign penalties this new frenzy which has become inflamed to your injury and that of the holy Roman church, your spouse, and to the notorious scandal of the whole Christian people. By the authority of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and by your own authority, remove and separate from God’s holy church, by a perpetual anathema, the aforesaid wicked perpetrators of this prodigious crime and their unfortunate heresiarch and veritable antichrist in God’s church together with all their supporters, adherents and followers and especially his execrable electors or rather profaners.

“May he and all the aforesaid be cast out like an antichrist and an invader and a destroyer of the whole of Christianity. Let no appeal in this matter ever be allowed to him or to them. Let them and their posterity and successors be deprived without appeal of every ecclesiastical or secular rank and dignity whatsoever. Let all of them be condemned by a perpetual anathema and excommunication and may they be counted among the wicked who will not rise at the judgment. May they feel the anger of God against them. May they feel the rage of saints Peter and Paul, whose church they dare to throw into confusion, both in this life and in the next. May their dwelling be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents. May their children be orphans and their wives be widows. May the world fight against them and all the elements be opposed to them, so that they may be cast out, destroyed and eliminated by all and so that, as they grovel in permanent penury, death may deservedly be their refuge and life their punishment. May the merits of all the saints cast them into confusion and display open vengeance on them in their lifetime. May they receive a deserved fate with Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Finally, unless they repent from their hearts, perform deeds worthy of repentance and make worthy satisfaction to your holiness and the universal church for the enormity of their sins, may they be thrust with the wicked into the everlasting darkness, doomed by the just judgment of God to eternal torments…

“Therefore, in order that so enormous and execrable a deed may, with the help of God whose cause is at stake, be destroyed from its very roots, we are applying, in conjunction with this holy council and with the least possible delay, a remedy in accordance with the holy canons…Nevertheless we and this holy synod, imitating the mercy of God who desires not the death of the sinner but rather that he be converted and live, have decided to show all possible mercy and to act, in so far as we can, in such a way that the proposed mildness may recall them to heart and lead them to recoil from the above-mentioned excesses, and so that when at last they return to the bosom of the church like the prodigal son, we may receive them with kindness and embrace them with fatherly love…

“We exhort, beg and beseech the antichrist Amadeus and the aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and whoever else believes in, adheres to, receives or in any way supports him, straightaway to stop violating the church’s unity for which the Saviour prayed so earnestly to the Father, and to cease from rending and lacerating fraternal charity and peace …We strictly enjoin and order him and them in virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties of anathema, heresy, schism and treason which have been inflicted in any ways against such persons, whether by men or by the law:

“That within fifty days immediately following the publication of this letter, the antichrist Amadeus should cease from acting any more and designating himself as the Roman pontiff and should not, in so far as he can, allow himself to be held and called such by others, and should not dare hereafter in any way to use papal insignia and other things belonging in any way to the Roman pontiff; And that the aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and adherents, receivers and supporters should no longer, either in person or through others, directly or indirectly or under any pretext, aid, believe in, adhere to or support the said Amadeus in this crime of schism…

“If Amadeus and the said electors, believers, adherents, receivers and supporters shall act otherwise — though may it not be so — and do not effectively fulfill each and all of the aforesaid points within the appointed time, we wish and decree that from then as from now they automatically incur the stated penalties…,” (end of Council quote. All emphasis within quotes in this document is the author’s.)

“Exiled” and hidden popes treated as resigned

While it is true that the Apostolic See at present is not filled, and so such a man would not reign as opposed to a true pope, that man still would perfectly fit the definition of Antichrist found in the Catholic Encyclopedia: a king reigning during an interregnum. He also would fit the description given by Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex…,” a heretic raised to the See who only appears to be pope. The current papal election legislation by Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches: “We command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy.” The rights of the Apostolic See demand a canonical election of a truly worthy candidate. It cannot be proven that Siri’s election was canonical, posed as it was by heretics sanctioned under Cum ex…, who later amply demonstrated the extent of their treachery. Siri could scarcely be considered a worthy candidate, cooperating with the antichurch and acknowledging the usurpers of the Holy See at every turn. Proofs exist concerning this acknowledgement and cooperation, and no proofs exist confirming his orthodoxy.

Let Catholics remember that when headed by a true pope the Church is only visible if it can be identified as such. Even in the early centuries of the Church the faithful always knew who their pope and bishops were and even lived in hiding with them at times. In 1804, Pius VII signed an abdication of the papal throne prior to departing for Paris to crown Napoleon. The abdication was to take effect in the event that he was held captive in France. During World War II, Pius XII is reported to have signed a document stating that should he be abducted by the Nazis, he was to be considered as having resigned as pope. In the past, Pope St. Pontian was exiled and a new papal election held and this also happened to other popes. A secret reign of a pope for over 20 years has no precedent whatsoever in the Church. No better definition of doubt could be found than that of a supposed pope, named and kept in hiding, who cannot be verified as even existing!

If God wished us to have a pope at this time, He would miraculously provide us with one. This is the only way Catholics would know with any certainty that he was legitimate. But the real reason is that Siri himself proved to be a heretic/schismatic, so no true successor could ever issue from him. Those observing that sedevacantism is no longer a viable position are right insofar as those believing the See to be vacant cannot in the meantime set up their own church. But neither can people set up a false church by promoting a false pope, either.

Who is Peter Tran Van Khoat

Before receiving any lifting of censures or revalidation of marriages or whatever else may be offered by Gregory XVIII via Peter Tran Van Khoat, those making these requests should ask themselves:

• Who is Fr. Khoat? Where are his priestly credentials? Since he was affiliated with the Novus Ordo, Lefebvre, Giuffre and other Traditionalists, has HE been absolved of his censures and irregularities and how do we know this?

• Where is the proof of his ordination and jurisdiction? Consecration, if applicable? Or if not a bishop, extraordinary faculties to absolve from such censures which are always reserved to the Roman Pontiff, or at the very least a bishop designated by him.

• Khoat claims he was created whatever in 1988  (bishop, cardinal?) and his orders “regularized” by the “pope,” but where is the proof? Was this “pope” Siri, and is Khoat the successor? Siri died in 1989.

• What is required of the faithful before receiving absolution and abjuration? What is an abjuration and what should precede it — does anyone even know?

As has been pointed out in the article at /free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/ , the first teaching of the Church Siri supporters deny is the insistence by numerous popes on the exclusive use of the scholastic system for weighing evidence and arriving at truth. It demonstrates the falsehoods manufactured today by those who spin endless scenarios to construct conspiracy theories, which is basically what the Siri theory amounts to. But a theory is not a fact, and Pope Pius XII actually forbids us to indulge in such “conjectural notions” and “unstable tenets” as noted above. No lay leaders primarily using prophecy as proof (which has no guarantee of infallibility or doctrinal weight of any kind); no shadowy middleman whose past is a series of unanswered questions; no unidentified, unnamed and questionably elected pope, whether Siri or his successor, can gainsay true popes or make it appear that those who reek of doubtful origin could ever be considered a true head of the Church.

Conclusion

Slowly but surely, those who consider themselves true Catholics are being absorbed by groups either prepared to accept the “papacy” of Francis, once he “converts,” (another absurdity and insult to the intellect propagated by those who preach the probability of a material/formal papacy); by means of reconciliation with the false church of Rome as has happened with the St. Pius X Society members or by allegiance to a series of false popes existing here and there, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope). Still others, we hear, have gone over to the Indult Mass from Traditionalism, thus returning to their vomit. Holy Scripture warns that false christs and wolves in sheep’s clothing will abound to deceive even the elect in the latter days, and they are definitely at work as these words are being written.

In his The Essentials of Formal Logic, the foundation of scholastic philosophy/theology, Rev. Michael J. Mahony, S. J., provides a list of what is known in philosophy as a fallacy of argument or a sophism — “a falsehood hidden under the appearance of truth.” Let that resonate for a moment, because it is the key to everything that Traditionalists have done for the past five decades. Under the heading of “Fallacies” in Ch. XI of his 1918 work, Mahoney lists the following under the subhead of false induction: “False observation, false interpretation, seeing what we wish to see, not seeing what we do not wish to see.” It isthe lying visions and operation of error spoken of by St. Paul. Beg our Lord for the grace to open your eyes, before you are led by these blind guides into the eternal abyss.

Siri theory a good example of Anti-Scholastic thinking

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 28, 2014

© Copyright 2014 T. Stanfill Benns
(This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Promoters of Genoa’s long-deceased Guiseppe Cardinal Siri say they are seeing renewed interest in their promotion of Siri’s election as pope (said to have occurred in 1958 and 1963) since Francis’ election, and are trying to use this migration to attract still more to their ranks. Of course the Siri theory, (which they boldly proclaim as Siri FACTS), has become far more elaborate since the cardinal’s death, and now to claim him pope they have necessarily had to produce a “successor.” In reality, all the Siri theory and its tormented history amounts to is a conspiracy theory web carefully woven to attract disenchanted Catholics, not willing to look too far for answers, into its sticky orb. Do serious Catholics have any business using conspiracy theories as the basis for their faith? Not if they really understand and appreciate what the Church is all about and possess that faith to begin with. The only “conspiracy theory” (so-called by Protestants) that a true Catholic can credit as indisputable is the fact that Freemasonry long ago set out to destroy the Church and governments worldwide. This we must accept firmly and irrevocably as the constant teaching of the Church, coming infallibly from numerous popes over the course of two centuries.

How does one test the credibility of any other conspiracy theory? The answer will amaze those reading this piece. One site (http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html) calls these theories “logical fallacies” and identifies them with the same false arguments and methods of proof Scholastic philosophy enumerates! It truly boggles the mind. That the Siri theory fits the criteria for a conspiracy theory can be proven from what this article relates, because it corresponds to so many of the qualifying factors listed.  And based on the observations offered by former Siri “insiders,” living the life of a Siri supporter is not unlike membership in a secret society, where only certain privileged persons have access to the “truth,” and leaders bestow that truth only upon those who have proven themselves “worthy” of receiving it.  The Catholic Church has never cloaked the identity of Her pontiffs in secrecy; by necessity popes must be public figures known to the faithful and accepted by them as pope, not figures hidden from view and whispered about in Internet chat rooms and among the privileged few. Historically the Church replaced those in exile or captivity, therefore not able to reign publicly, with popes able to function as such in the public eye, and this even in times of grave hardship, war and invasion. What the Church has never done is warp her teaching to suit a specific suspected incident or popular theory not in line with Church teaching and practice, and this is precisely what Siri theorists have advocated since the 1980s.

The Catholic Church has only one method for determining the value of evidence, one way of gauging whether or not this or that actually took place and if it does indeed conform with Church law and teaching. It is called the Scholastic method and consists of two separate sciences — theology and philosophy. St. Thomas teaches that these sciences are indeed separate, “yet …they agree. They are distinct because…philosophy relies on reason alone, theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith which belong [only] to theology. They must agree because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that would contradict what He teaches in the supernatural order. The recognition of these principles is the crowning achievement of Scholasticism,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII). To claim someone uses Scholasticism in dealing with allegedly factual evidence while omitting the necessary theological proofs is to falsely assert that such facts are equal to the doctrinal evidence required and mandated by the Church Herself. It is a devious attempt to split theology from philosophy, when the two must agree. Truth IS one, while error is many. Those who pretend otherwise neither serve “veritas,” nor even understand the purpose for its existence.

As Rev. J. C. Fenton, a doctor in sacred theology who trained at the Angelicum in Rome wrote in the 1940s: “The principles from which theologians draw their conclusions are actually truths which have been revealed to the world by Jesus Christ our Lord…[Sacred theology] is a science which works toward the clear and unequivocal expression of the divine message…[It] is the work of explaining the content of that teaching which God has given the world through…our Lord, and which is proposed for belief of men by the infallible magisterium of the Church,” (Concepts of Sacred Theology). While it is true we are not theologians, it also is true that mere lay people have been forced to deal with situations normally dealt with only by the hierarchy and theologians expounding Catholic truth. We are not allowed to treat such subjects according to worldly standards; if we delve into them at all, we must do our best to assess them only from those standards used by the Church. Scholastic method assures these sacred subjects the dignity and reverence they deserve, unlike other methods. That no attempt at all has been made by the Siri crowd to observe these norms set down by the Church should alert those dealing with them that what they relate about this supposed event, the election of Cardinal Siri as pope, will never be certainly confirmed as true. But most importantly, as others measuring it by Catholic standards alone have proven, it does not suffice to present random facts as true. Those facts must prove that the laws and teachings of the Church regarding such matters are fully in agreement with the evidence and conclusions of those presenting them, and if not then such conclusions must miserably fail.

If one is truly a bona fide member of the Catholic Church, there is only one way to present the truths of faith; one way to examine and explain points of law and doctrinal matters in order to propagate the truths of faith. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who provided us with the means to present these truths, and Pope Leo XIII and other popes champion it here as the only method of demonstration to be used in defending the Catholic faith.

“The knowledge and exercise of this science of salvation have certainly always brought the very greatest help to the Church; whether it be for the right understanding and interpretation of Scripture, or for reading and expounding the Fathers with greater safety and profit, or for laying bare and answering different errors and heresies. This doctrine flows from the brimming fountain of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Supreme Pontiffs, and of Holy Fathers and Councils. Now indeed, in these last days, it is in the highest degree necessary to refute heresies and confirm the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. For now have come those dangerous times of which the Apostle speaks. Now men, blasphemous, proud, deceivers, go from bad to worse, wandering from the truth themselves and leading others into error…Scholastic Theology, [Pope Sixtus V] tells us, ‘has an apt coherence of facts and causes, connected with one another; an order and arrangement, like soldiers, drawn up in battle array; definitions and distinctions very lucid; unanswerableness of argument and acute disputations. By these the light is divided from the darkness, and truth from falsehood. The wiles of heretics, wrapped up in many wiles and fallacies, being stripped of their coverings, are bared and laid open.’ But these great and wondrous gifts can only be found in a right use of that philosophy which the masters of Scholasticism, of set purpose and with wise counsel, were everywhere accustomed to use even in their theological disputations…

“There are many, who with minds alienated from the Faith, hate all Catholic teaching, and say that reason alone is their teacher and guide. To heal these men of their unbelief, and to bring them to grace and the Catholic Faith, We think that nothing, after the supernatural help of God, can be more useful in these days than the solid doctrine of the fathers and the Scholastics. They teach firm foundations of Faith, its Divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments by which it is commended to men, the benefits that it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect harmony with reason. They teach all such truths with a weight of evidence and a force that may well persuade even minds unwilling and hostile in the highest degree.” (For additional papal proofs visit http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart1.htm). What these saints, canonists and theologians have to say on the incapacity of a heretic to be elected, the necessity of a canonical election, the need to rule out any and all possibility of intrigue and excommunicable offense barring candidates from election, the absolute necessity of confirming the accepto, and many other details covered in Canon Law and papal documents is crucial to determining whether any election actually took place. These points have all been examined, and Cardinal Siri has been found woefully wanting.

The only conclusions that true and serious-minded Catholics can arrive at, then, is that if scholasticism was not used in the fashioning, promoting and marketing of this elusive “theory,” it is not worthy of belief. But then what thought system DID they employ; how did they come to their conclusions and what is the value of their proofs? In analyzing the method used in their presentation, it can be said that it most resembles pragmatism, (see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic), for it exhibits several of the points identified in this article. These are presented below.

• An unproved hypothesis or hypothetical cause, if it explains the facts observed, fulfills the same purpose and serves the same ends as a true cause or established law…

This is a perfect explanation of the entire presentation of the “Siri thesis.” There is no verifiable evidence, from Cardinals participating in the conclave or those observing it, that Siri ever was elected Pope, chose a papal name and accepted his election as Canons 109 and 219 require for the reception of universal jurisdiction and validity. There IS canonical proof that he was not elected and could not have been elected. White smoke does not necessarily an election make; there could be other explanations. Some authors name other possible “popes-elect,” and one of these scenarios rings far more true than the election of Siri. In a matter that is determined a dogmatic fact, one must have certitude. None is available concerning Siri’s election in the1958 election. If the Church demands it, and Her laws demonstrate that She does, then without it there is no pope-elect. All the Siri proponents have to go on is a conglomeration of shaky, circumstantial evidence that cannot be verified by anyone deemed trustworthy or admissible as a witness in an ecclesiastical court. It cannot and does not serve the same end as established law, far less Church teaching. This is pragmatic reasoning and it can scarcely be held of equal weight as deductive reasoning or the binding precepts of Canon Law.

• A problem presented to the thinking mind calls for an adjustment of the previous content of the mind to a new experience in a problem pondered…

The “new experience(s)” dredged up by the Siri crowd are the 1958 smoke, the alleged threat of nuclear attack if Siri accepted, the “Siri prisoner” theory, promises of new evidence, a new and earlier date of election which no one had previously reported, Siri’s appointment of Khoat and/or others as cardinals and even Khoat’s possible “appointment” as Pope. Any individual supporting the Siri thesis automatically confirms the event with his own acceptance and interpretation of the experience, an experience and perception related secondhand by supposedly credible “witnesses,” which amounts only to hearsay. Traditionalists must put aside all previous perceptions of the crisis in the Church to digest this nonsense. And yet the laws and teachings of the Church, the rules of evidence, the treachery of the cardinals electing Roncalli remain unchanged.

Experience is the true test of real existence…No item of experience ever can be verified definitely and irrevocably, only provisionally.

Siri supporters do not say this, but their reaction to those demanding solid evidence tells us that they presume what they have already presented as sufficient. Those who reportedly received leaks and “declassified documents” from the 1958 conclave — the cardinals voting, the testimony of certain secular “experts” speculating about the outcome of the conclave — only provide their intuition and experience concerning the whole affair. For a pragmatist, this is proof that what they want so badly to believe really happened actually did happen. The white soke really as a sign of Siri’s election, not a mistake. When Siri reportedly said he was bound by the secret this really did mean he was elected, not that he was, like any other cardinal, not allowed to reveal the internal workings of the conclave. (It would seem that a pope, however, would not be so bound.) But funny internal feelings (FIF) [1] and what amounts to hearsay reports from questionably Catholic individuals does not constitute the proof necessary to arrive at certitude. Once again, the truths of faith and Canon Law, not experience, comprise the golden standard.

Here we wish to propose a scenario of our own for the 1958 election based on dogmatic facts. If there were enough Freemasons to supply a majority to Roncalli, as Siri theorist Jim Condit claims, why did anyone bother to vote for Siri?  Why not Leger, Lienart, or others equally traitorous? A total of 51 Cardinals entered the Conclave, (for their names, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_in_Papal_conclave,_1958).  For the election to be valid, 35 Catholic cardinals were needed, (two-thirds plus one). If more than 16 already were heretics, hence deposed (and later events confirm the number to be far more than that), then the election was invalid on its face; Pope Pius XII’s election constitution Vacantis Apostolica Sedis requires the two-thirds plus one for validity. Let’s presume there were 35 Catholics and 16 non-Catholics in the conclave. We will suppose an election occurred on Sunday, October 26, 1958 when the white smoke reportedly appeared. For purposes of argument we will say that Siri was elected but the election was reversed by threat. Given that Siri received the requisite 35 votes, at least 19 Cardinals must have switched to Roncalli by October 28. This is a fair-sized number, although the actual turn of events can only remain conjecture, (for one vote tally scenario, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_1958. This chart, however, is short by one vote).

The 19 who retracted their votes to elect an antipope betrayed the fact that, according to Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the law now governing the treatment of heretics and schismatics, they most likely were heretics before their elevation to the cardinalate. We know Roncalli was a suspected modernist so could never have been a candidate for election. Once the college “elected” him, they were disqualified from electing anyone else owing to heresy or cooperation in heresy, according to Canon Law. And no claim of fear or duress can be taken seriously when one understands the solemn vow cardinals take on their creation to defend the Faith and the papacy with their blood, if need be. [2] These cardinals, including Siri, went on to fully support Roncalli and his successors and to sign the documents of the false Vatican 2 council. There can be no doubt that they ever swerved in their loyalty to the antipopes. And neither can there exist any doubt whatsoever that the initial support of Siri by these same men amounted, at the very least, to his questionably valid “election.” For to claim that election valid today would mean that we are relying on votes also cast almost simultaneously for an antichrist. Condit’s contention that “The Siri Thesis leaves the See of Rome intact, albeit in eclipse, in harmony with the conception and vision of all the Fathers of the Church, [3] and all the approved prophecies,” simply cannot and does not hold water. The Siri thesis is a fine piece of pragmatism that refuses to obey the laws of mathematics as well as Canon Law and the teachings of the Church. It would use the acceptance of heresy (Masonic threats) as the very foundation for its connection to Rome as long as their abominable Siri hypothesis is upheld.

• Individual interpretation of events and experience, intuition and sensistic feelings are the proper mode of judgment for this system, (modernism).

This wording is almost identical to that used by Pope St. Pius X to describe the Modernists. Siri theorists do not point to papal decrees or to the teachings of the ecumenical councils as proof that their conclusions are correct. They do not subject their theories to the rules expounded in Canon Law. They ignore the clear evidence that exists because their feelings and intuition, their experiences are more important than any of these. What they have done with the Siri theory is create a phantasmagoric conspiracy theory, not unlike the UFO theories, complete with death plots, threatened terroristic acts, unlawful detainment, doubles, secret codes, teenage “cardinals” and hidden rulers waiting in the wings to rush forward and save the day.  They have seasoned it with just enough Catholic sounding verbiage and private prophecy that those ignorant of how the Church really operates and what She actually teaches can be easily fooled. So many of these people are so used to their soap operatic, drama-filled lives and the conspiracy theories constantly hatched and retouched by those they trust as political and spiritual leaders that they have lost all touch with reality. Conspiracies there are, both political and religious, but they are called theories for a reason: no one can quite prove they are true. Most at best are suspect and the rest are simply a little more believable than the others.

If one can demonstrate that at least an attempt has been made to follow the rules of Scholastic philosophy, then certain conclusions can be drawn from this. For an opponent who cannot follow the rules of scholastic philosophy does not possess the proofs necessary to establish a defense. As the rule of law goes, facts are not presumed; they must be demonstrated. For years we have readily demonstrated the facts not from merely probable sources, but from unimpeachable sources. These infallible sources themselves cannot be questioned, as Rev. J. C. Fenton explained in his earlier quoted work. “Since the certitude of theology is from divine knowledge, it cannot be explained merely in function of the syllogistic process by which its conclusions are derived…Theological demonstration is a complex process, and the theological conclusion is not extrinsic to the body of actually revealed doctrine…The meaning of divine revelation, as it is proposed in the infallible magisterium of the Church, is so clear that demonstrations directed toward bringing out that meaning can possess a superior certitude…It was precisely the certitude of sacred theology that led to the unmasking of the various heresies which have appeared during the course of Christian history.”

He also includes Canon Law within the scope of scholastic theology, writing: “Canon Law is formulated by the Holy Father, by the Vicar of Christ on earth and by the ecumenical council, which is subject to and in communion with him…The teacher of Canon Law is able to indicate the actual direction given by the living and infallible Church,” (Concept of Sacred Theology). This is why, as Can. 1827, tells us, “He who has a presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof which is then shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed…the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” The presumption here is that a true Catholic can use only the means infallibly determined as authentic and reliable to judge whether truths really do issue from the Catholic faith. One who is not willing to faithfully abide by this method is not an obedient son or daughter of the Church.

Conclusion

One cannot determine the outcome of Church affairs, especially when they concern incidents of the gravest import to the stability and future of the Church, without employing the very method the Church has prescribed for resolving questions concerning truths of faith. The Church long ago condemned pragmatism as an heretical system of philosophy, identifying it, Rev. Pascal Parente says, as the philosophical system used by Lutherans. In his “Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology,” he writes: “Goodness and truth become something subjective, subordinated to the conviction of the individual and his experimental tests…Pragmatism is a radical denial of all revealed religion and makes God’s very existence conditioned by psychological experience.” The hair-brained Siri scheme, initially cooked up to sidetrack a deeper investigation of the bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and the restoration of the papacy and papal obedience, has been proven time and again to be fatally flawed in many of its aspects, even by nationally acclaimed publications. It is an embarrassment to the Catholic religion. More than that, it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the truth and a carefully laid trap to siphon off Catholics into yet another false papal election scheme. And yet the Siri founders told those who first supported their efforts they were pursuing their research to prevent that very thing from happening.

Some of us have been given the grace to see through these impostures and find the truth, thanks be to God. Pray that others are not seduced by these false prophets; or if held captive, are granted the grace and means to escape.

[1] See the work by the convert Arnold Lunn, Now I See, Ch. IX, “Facts Versus FIF”

[2] See The Siri File (now on the membership site) for more on the binding nature of this oath.

[3] All the Fathers have not foreseen this as Condit claims since St. Bernard, the last Father of the Church, definitely foresaw the seizing of the papal throne by Antichrist. And according to Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex…, the pope has defined Antichrist (the abomination of desolation) as one who will be a heretic elected to the See unbeknownst to the faithful. So if Siri supporters want to deny a papal definition of Holy Scripture, then they can cease worrying about a pope because they are outside the Church.

H. Who do we believe on Cum ex — Hergenrother, or the popes?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 13, 2014

Who do we believe on Cum ex — Hergenrother, or the popes?

© Copyright 2014, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Some now point to the writings of “the learned” Cardinal Hergenrother, who wrote “The Catholic Church and Christian State” in 1876, to prove that, as Hergenrother claims, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) is only a disciplinary law and could not possibly be infallible. Learned he may have been, but like so many theologians writing even after the Vatican Council; and despite subsequent papal teaching to the contrary, he failed to fully apprehend the full import of the Vatican Council documents, especially in relation to Cum ex…  His work after all was one about the civil law, and it is true that anything in Cum ex… which excommunicates those possessing civil power long ago lost all effect. But how could he possibly hold the primary gist of Cum ex… as non-infallible, and only a mere disciplinary decree, when the Vatican Council infallibly taught the following: “If anyone thus speaks that the Roman Pontiff has…not the full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…Or that this power is not ordinary and immediate…over pastors and faithful altogether and individually; let him be anathema.” Hergenrother says in his work, “The Bull…only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which belong to disciplinary laws alone…Besides the renewal of old, there is an addition of new punishments, which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline.”

Henry Cardinal Manning refers to various past bulls in his “The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance.” In that work he says: “The Vatican Council… definition, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infallible, the Bull Unam Sanctam included.” Manning also names as infallible the bulls Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei, Auctorem Fidei being a bull almost entirely devoted to disciplinary measures.

Nothing is more official in the way of pontifical acts than a papal bull. In his “A Catholic Dictionary,” Donald Attwater defines a bull as: “The most solemn and weighty form of papal letter.” Of course there are those who have said and do say that the above Vatican Council quote states only that that the pope has jurisdiction over the faithful in matters of discipline as well as faith and morals, not that he can be infallible in such matters. But as we will see below, Pope Pius IX clarified this matter, shortly after the Vatican Council ended, in two separate constitutions. We also must object to Hergenrother’s statement in his work that “Infallibility only relates to moral precepts, to the general principles which the Pope prescribes to all Christians as a rule of conduct, not to the application of these principles to individual cases,” (emph. his).  Clearly from what the Vatican Council teaches above, the pope’s power extends to “individuals,” not just the general body of the faithful.

Taken in the context of a refutation to the Old Catholics, who were interpreting it wrongly, one might be able to understand in a remote way how Hergenrother arrived at his conclusions; but I most vehemently disagree with them as a denial of the Vatican Council teaching quoted above and the teachings of the Church on this subject throughout the centuries. We must obey God, not men. So let us get it straight, once and for all, that nothing a cardinal says will trump papal teaching, ever. Christ did not guarantee the cardinals’ faith would never fail; only Peter’s. He only wished or willed that the hierarchy of the Church should last until the end of time (DZ 1821), and since when has anyone ever cared what God willed? People refuse to do God’s will on a daily basis to follow their own evil will and have since the beginning of time. This misunderstanding of papal teaching and power is what has caused Catholics to misapprehend their faith for centuries. Already in the 1970s, Traditionalists were teaching the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, most notably some among the SSPX, “Fr.” Oswald Baker, “Fr.” Khoat in the 1980s and others, when this is clearly an infallible teaching, (DZ 1792). It appears in Baker’s own written sermons and this author heard it personally from Khoat. Both were guilty of heresy. Pope Pius IX condemned this error among writers and theologians years before the Vatican Council convened, (See DZ 1683) so it is nothing that was introduced with infallibility.

This is the other topic Traditionalists totally misrepresent and fail to understand — heresy, apostasy and schism. How could such matters be limited to disciplinary actions when they most intimately concern whether a person does or does not possess the faith, and what penalty will be assessed for this?! The only reason Protestants were ever able to claim Cum ex… “depoped” a pope is because they did not read that bull correctly or understand it in the light of faith. From the beginning of my studies on Cum ex…, I made the proper distinction, one some readers obviously have either missed or ignored, (/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/heresies-concerning-papal-authority/why-a-legitimate-roman-pontiff-could-never-become-a-heretic-but-could-only-appear-to-become-one/). And I do not HAVE to use only Cum ex… to demonstrate (yes, even amateur scholastics are required to demonstrate their arguments) that these popes were never popes, from the beginning; that is dictated by Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s election law. Even if Hergenrother was correct and Paul IV’s bull was only disciplinary in nature, it would still be binding on Catholics. But he is NOT correct; and the proof of this lies in the fact that whether Cum ex… appears in Denzinger’s or not (and the very fact that it might confuse some in the same way it confused Protestants is a good reason why it might not be included), it is the entire basis for nearly every Canon written on the determination (not just the censures) of what constitutes heresy, apostasy and schism.

Rev. Nicolas Neuberger, in his Commentary on Canon 6 has cited the Church’s laws concerning discipline as negatively infallible, meaning that they cannot work to the harm of souls or the destruction of the divine principle of perpetuity and infallibility on which the Church is built. Volume V (v), of the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Discipline” states that it is the unanimous opinion of the theologians that “discipline enjoys a negative, indirect infallibility, i.e., the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or Divine law would exact.” Pope Pius IX declared the unanimous opinion of theologians to be infallible, and hence anything determined by them unanimously must be firmly believed. (DZ 1683). Those things which are indirectly infallible also are binding, and if they are based on the divine or natural law they must be accepted with an irrevocable assent. Also, as Rev. Patrick Madgett explains: “In analyzing the solemn teaching of the Church, we find that the Church exercises the fullness of Her infallible teaching authority to demand an irrevocable assent to matters which are not explicitly revealed, and apparently not even implicitly revealed. These definitions and decisions… of Ecclesiastical Faith are so intimately connected with faith that one could not deny them without implicitly denying some article of faith. They are to be believed…on the word of the Church, God’s infallible teacher,” (Christian Origins, Vol. II, 1943; emphasis Madgett’s).

While those who are contesting the authority of this bull say that Cum ex… is not listed in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma,” what is listed there for belief by Wycliffe’s followers and the Hussites is the following: “”Whether he believes that the pope canonically elected, who lived for a time, after having expressed his own name, is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God,” (DZ 674). The canons governing papal elections are found in Pope Pius XII’s election law, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis. There we find that one deposed for heresy cannot be admitted to the conclave, per Can. 188 §4, which all admit is the retention of Cum ex.. in the Code, (one of many citations, mainly under canons regarding heresy). Matters of faith so intimately connected with discipline are precisely what Rev. Madgett refers to above. Legitimacy of election is inextricably bound up with the grant of Divine jurisdiction, which cannot be bestowed on an unworthy person. This is divine law, and as such is intimately connected to Christ’s bestowal of power, granting infallibility. Destroy this and we have no guarantee that what the pope teaches on faith and morals is free from error. Cum ex… guarantees the faith of the Roman Pontiff; without that faith, we have no Church.

Papal Decrees and their Binding Nature

Infallible and authoritative statements: both are binding

Rev. J. C. Fenton, personally commended by Pope Pius XII, writes in his “Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” (American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1953): “If [the pope’s] supreme power is exercised within the field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men as a part of revelation,” Fenton continues, “then the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If, on the other hand the Holy Father, using this supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain. They are, in either case, obliged in conscience to give an unconditional and absolutely irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way.” And how is Cum ex… any exception to this rule, even if it is not infallible (which it is)?

Rev. Fenton concludes that the Church can definitely command the faithful to accept its judgments and condemnations with an internal assent, (“Lamentabili sane exitu”). In addressing the statement by others that Canon Law declares that “Nothing is to be understood as declared or defined dogmatically unless this be manifestly certain,” (Can. 1323), a reference made by Hergenrother, Rev. Fenton observes that Catholic scholars accept the unqualified and authoritative judgments or decisions expressed in the encyclicals (and other documents) as absolutely true, not just as morally or practically certain. In way of example, Fenton points to the fact that prior to the issuance of “Mystici Corporis,” Cardinal Ottaviani held as only a probable opinion that bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the Roman Pontiff. When “Mystici Corporis” was released in 1943, Ottaviani immediately changed his teaching to reflect the definition of Pope Pius XII, that the bishops may exercise their jurisdiction only through the Roman Pontiff.

Rev. Fenton then goes on to explain in the article that teachings of the ordinary magisterium, (as stated in the Vatican Council documents and in Canon Law), are binding even when they are only indirectly addressed to the Church militant and even when they are only secondarily concerned with matters of faith and morals. “In other words, the Holy Father is empowered, not only to obligate the disciples of Jesus Christ to accept, on faith or as certain, statements within the sphere of the Church’s doctrinal competence, but also to impose the duty of accepting other propositions within the same sphere as opinions…Humani Generis reasserts the right of the Roman Pontiff to demand an opinionative assent. When, in his encyclicals or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the universal Church militant with anything less than his suprema magisterii potestas, he is calling for such an opinionative judgment…The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact that an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official Acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as for instance, the use of such terms as ‘define’ or ‘declare.’ The Humani Generis has put an end to this dangerous minimism.” (And Hergenrother dismisses Cum ex… even though it does contain “define and decree.”)

It must be remembered that the teaching of Humani Generis was not extant at the time Hergenrother wrote. This encyclical made it clear that all that was needed for a papal proclamation to bind the faithful was its listing in the Acta Apostolic Sedis. This encyclical also confirmed that infallible teaching could be found even in encyclical letters. Nor had it yet been defined in Hergenrother’s day that the bishops held ordinary authority through Christ but could exercise it only with permission of the Roman Pontiff. In his day Hergenrother was certain that “The doctrine of the power of the bishops needed no definition, being previously doubted by no one,” (p. 32). And yet Henry Cardinal Manning, Hergenrother’s contemporary, had written his work “The Pastoral Office,” very carefully examining, from the best theological minds of the times, the arguments pro bishops as subject to the pope and con as possessing ordinary jurisdiction directly from Christ, with the former winning out even then. But those championing Hergenrother obviously are unaware that he is being less than honest in his writings, or do not care as long as they make their point. Nor do they fear the dangers of minimism, or take into account the many theological developments concerning the frequency of infallible teaching in papal documents. Certainly they do not show any regard for Pope Pius IX’s infallible pronouncement on disciplinary law, which after all only repeats the teaching of the Vatican Council.

Disciplinary decrees are infallible

(From Pope Pius IX’s “Quartus Supra,” On the Church in Armenia, Jan. 6, 1873):

“Definition of a Schismatic

12. But the neo-schismatics say that it was not a case of doctrine but of discipline, so the name and prerogatives of Catholics cannot be denied to those who object. Our Constitution Reversurus, published on July 12, 1867, answers this objection. We do not doubt that you know well how vain and worthless this evasion is. For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank. Since the faction from Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority. For the Church consists of the people in union with the priest, and the flock following its shepherd. Consequently the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. Furthermore, as Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often closely related to doctrine and has a great influence in preserving its purity. In fact, in many instances, the holy Councils have unhesitatingly cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline,” (see Madgett’s quote above).

“Authority of the Holy See

13. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since ‘every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.’ Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.”

Three years after writing “Quartus Supra,” we also hear the following from Pope Pius IX, in “Quae in patriarchatu”: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (emph. mine – Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) Notice that the inclusion of disciplinary laws as infallible is not anything new, but goes back to the very beginnings of the Church. Notice also that anyone who would deny that disciplinary laws ARE infallible is a heretic. So Pope Paul IV’s law did not just become an infallible decree retroactively following the Vatican Council definition; owing to the seriousness of its subject matter especially, it was infallible from the very beginning. Once we examine these Cum ex… quotes below in light of the above, and in relation to the marks required for infallibility, how could anyone possibly claim this bull is not infallible?

Countering Hergenrother’s objections

Let us here address the objections made by Hergenrother. These later will be compared to the council definitions for infallibility, since Hergenrother relies mainly upon “the rules universally received among theologians.” The absolute necessity of adhering first of all to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, and secondarily only to the teachings of those theologians in agreement with them, cannot be emphasized enough.

First, Hergenrother says that because the use of the Apostolic power is referred to only in the introduction, it is not to be counted as applying to the whole document, but this is not true. This power is referred to in the numbered paragraphs (two and three), whereas the preamble is not numbered. In paragraph three this power is stated emphatically and the purpose of the Bull made immediately clear in the same paragraph. He objects that the bull is modeled on civil law and has only to do with penal law, taking the meaning of Paul IV’s work entirely out of context. This is true especially since, as Henry Cardinal Manning points out in his work on civil allegiance, those censures levied for the civil authorities can apply only if these authorities are subject to the pope. Concerning the reinstatement of all previous censures, Paul IV had to lay the foundation for his later teaching in paragraph six of the bull by first renewing all past censures, for only then could he proceed to the meat of the matter. Having done this he demonstrated why it was necessary to renew the censures, applying them not only to bishops and cardinals but even one appearing to be a validly elected pope.

Second, despite clear evidence of a definition, Hergenrother denies that one has been made because, “Other papal disciplinary laws have been issued out of the ‘fullness of power,’ and the word ‘define’ is used in other places also of judicial judgments.” This statement indicates that not only is he eliminating Cum ex… as an infallible decree, he is not admitting the possible infallibility of any disciplinary laws here. He does not address the binding of the bull with an oath, stating only that Paul IV’s mention of it as remaining valid in perpetuity does not mean that other bulls and laws containing this same clause were not later repealed. This is true, as circumstances can change in the Church. But rather than being repealed, practically the entirety of Pope Paul IV’s law has been enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, something Hergenrother did not live to see. It should be noted that the infallibility of disciplinary laws is a teaching most hated by the Gallicanists and Modernists, whose contempt for authority is addressed by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei and Pope St. Pius X in his condemnations of Modernism.

Thirdly, concerning whether the bull contained a definition of some matter that until then was not decided, Hergenrother wrote: “The question was not about controversies, but about articles of faith settled long ago by the Church.” Here Hergenrother appears to be entirely oblivious to the circumstances of the bull and to the very import of the definitions just advanced by the Vatican Council. We know that the entire purpose of the Council was to teach that the pope could NEVER lose his faith and decide wrongly on a matter concerning faith, morals (or discipline); this because he is guided by the Holy Ghost.  Christ prayed for Peter that his faith never fail, and Christ’s prayers, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in his Catechism of the Summa, are always heard. The controversy of whether a pope could fall into heresy as a pope continued through the 20^th century, but after the Vatican Council it could only be considered in the context of a pope falling into such heresy as a private person. In that case, as Pope Paul IV taught in 1559, he could be corrected, as was John XXII, who then graciously retracted his error, (although what he denied was not yet a dogma defined as revealed). Theologians kept treating this subject without qualifying it in the 1900s, so that by the time the question arose in earnest concerning the last six antipopes, Traditionalists were no longer sufficiently familiar with the fact that it could apply only to the pope as a private person. Thus the Gallicanist teaching reared its head again about deposing popes, and the race was on. Those buying the Hergenrother argument are using it to point fingers at sedevacantists and stay-at-home Catholics, saying that Cum ex… is no longer viable and cannot be invoked. But if they deny there was any definition, isn’t that a clear indication that they never even understood why the bull was written, and what it set out to address?

Traditionalists have gone all out lately to refute Cum ex… and with it the teaching of the Vatican Council, to which it is so closely related. First they present Hergenrother’s arguments. Then the following was cited not long ago by a member of the St. Pius X Society on the Society’s discussion forum:  “Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that ‘it is beyond question” that a pope can ‘err in matters touching the Faith, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated ‘many Roman Pontiffs were heretics…If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).’ (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908). (According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)

This is presented as though it is a direct contradiction of the Vatican Council’s definition of infallibility. But notice the highlighted phrase above. This is exactly what the Vatican Council fathers decided after long debate; a pope can err as a private doctor but never in his official capacity, i.e., ex cathedra, when teaching all the faithful on faith and morals; Henry Cardinal Manning explains this in his history of the Vatican Council.  “His own judgment or decretal” means speaking as a private person, for nowhere does he indicate in this passage that such heresy was ever promulgated publicly. All this was examined and discussed at the Vatican Council before the definition was ever rendered, as Cuthbert Butler’s “The Vatican Council” history reveals. And certainly there is no question that what Pope Adrian said above is binding; no source is quoted for this quote in way of a papal pronouncement of any sort. Of course it is true, unless the pope was somehow mistaken as to the extent of the problem; but otherwise we have no reason to doubt him.

The definition in this bull was not only the answer to the question “Can a pope become a heretic?” It also was an important precursor to the Vatican Council definition itself, a sort of reverse mirror image of infallibility as it was later defined. The Council worked hard to prove that never had a pope been guilty of heresy in his public capacity. Pope Paul IV taught that should it ever appear that a pope was a public heretic there was a logical solution; it happened before the election, invalidating the election. After his bull was published, it seems even those popes erring as private doctors could be considered able to be removed if they did not recant. So if Paul IV did not teach “anything” in this bull, as its critics claim, then why can’t we find any mention of this subject elsewhere? After all it was not a new idea; already St. Bernard, a Doctor of the Church who died in the 1100s, had condemned the antipope Anacletus II with these words: “Behold Innocent [II], the Christ…for they that are of God willingly adhere to him, whilst opposed to him stand Antichrist and his followers. We have seen the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place…He persecutes Innocent and with him all innocence,” (“Life and Teaching of St. Bernard,” Ailbe J. Luddy, O Cist., Gill and Son, 1950). Pope Pius IX knew the contents of the Secret of La Salette, even though it had not yet been released to the people. Melanie had also received a message from Our Lady intended only for the pope, and while writing down that message had asked how to spell infallibility. Shortly after that the council preparations began. Our Lady knew the fierce attack that would be launched against the papacy. Her prediction to Melanie — that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist — is nothing more than we already knew to be an eventuality from the hand of Pope Paul IV. But God blinded many to the truth because they did not love it or wish to know it; they did not want to live in the latter days.

A fourth point Hergenrother makes is that “like other disciplinary laws of former times, [the bull In Coenae Domine and by inference Cum ex… has] altogether lost its binding force.” (Please see the article: “Cum ex: Infallible and Retained in the Code,” also “How Cum ex Is Retained in the Code,” on this website.) The Bull of Pope Paul IV, as well as that of Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, is further protected from any sort of abrogation by virtue of its makeup. according to Rev. Nicholas J. Neuberger, (Canon 6: The Relation of the Codex Juris Canonici to Preceding Legislation, Catholic University of America, 1927). Rev. Neuberger comments on the phrase “hac immutabili et in perpetuum valitura constitution” (roughly translated, “our constitution is to remain unchanged in perpetuity,”) found in various papal documents. He states that while such a phrase does not curtail the power nor invalidate future acts of a (legitimate) successor of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless “the legislator attaches an especial juridical sanction to laws which have such a clause appended. Pihring advances the theory that the laws of general councils are not abolished unless a derogatory clause is annexed next to the posterior enactment…” and, in addition, if a prior law is bound up with an actual ‘oath’ which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion are that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be invalid.”

This tells us that the oath attached to Cum Ex…, Quo Primum, Execrabilis, the constitution of Pope Benedict XV promulgating Canon Law, also the election laws of both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, guarantees these laws immune from abrogation, as their legislators obviously intended. The oath for all these laws reads in Cum ex… : “No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.” The oath reads more or less the same for the other documents. Now if one were to ask Traditionalists if this oath unquestionably prevented Quo Primum from being abrogated, the collective exhale would be “Most certainly!” Yet claim the same status for Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and quite a different response is received. That the last phrase of this bull contains the oath should alert the reader that it refers to the entire bull, not just certain parts. If Hergenrother and his present fans wish to incur the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul in order to continue justifying their use of spurious clergy, then they can explain this to St. Peter when he meets them at the pearly gates.

Commenting on Canon 6, Revs. Woywod and Smith relate in their commentary on the Code: “In reference to the former Canon Law the Code states that, as a rule, the old discipline is retained…The student of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.” Can. 6, no. 5 reads: “All former ecclesiastical penalties of which no mention is made in the Code are abolished.” The Latin version of the Code definitely lists Cum ex… in its footnotes, also recorded by Peter Cardinal Gasparri in his Fontes (sources). This is true not only for Can. 188§4 but also for several other Canons dealing with heresy, (Codex Iuris Canonici, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Newman Press, 1957.) The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188§4, but also for Canons 167§3, 2200, 2264, 2314, 2316 and 2317, and there may be others, (actual copies of this listing are available upon request). Rev. Cicognani comments: “Under the canons are placed footnotes or notes…first from the ‘Codicis Iuris Canonici,’ the Constitutions of Popes, from the Sacred Congregations, and from Liturgical Books…In the Code there are nearly 26,000 citations of the old law. Of these, 8,400 are from Gratian’s Decretum; about 1,200 from Ecumenical Councils; about 4,000 from Papal Constitutions; about 11,200 from the Sacred Congregations and 800 from liturgical Books. Rev. Neuberger comments that fewer fontes are provided for the penal laws, making the mention of Cum ex… more auspicious. Other Canons concerning the interpretation of the law must also be followed to determine the history behind Cum ex.

History of Cum ex…

As Canon Law instructs us to do, in doubt of the meaning or extent of any law we must look at the mind of the lawgiver, the circumstances and the purpose of the law, (Can. 18). The meaning of the words also must be considered. I have done my best to document the circumstances on my site and one other writer also presented the history of the bull. Once the circumstances are known, the intent of the law becomes clear, as does the purpose of the law. Rabid Protestants were running amok when Pope Paul IV reigned, denying papal power and even considering the popes a perpetual line of antichrists. Scripture was being falsified, as Paul IV notes in the preamble of his bull. The Great Apostasy had begun, and the Inquisition with it. Few recognize the significance of Paul IV’s use of Scripture in paragraph one of his bull; probably because they are so certain that this decree has become an irrelevant artifact. But what he says not only defines this phrase of Scripture — a rare event throughout the papacy — it also addresses and settles a controversy that rages yet today, the very controversy that relates to the “falsifying of Scripture” that Pope Paul IV referred to in his preamble. For the abomination is none other than the Antichrist; and Paul IV is essentially saying that the Antichrist would appear to be a pope, but he would instead be a rank usurper. The very meaning of Antichrist in the Catholic Encyclopedia is “A king who reigns during an interregnum,” a man reigning as a Pontifex Maximus of old rather than a true Catholic Pontiff. And a pope defining a phrase of Holy Scripture is definitely an infallible act; Scripture is revealed truth.

Now is this becoming clearer? The Protestants were saying the popes validly elected could lose the faith and become Antichrist; Pope Paul IV was saying no, this could only happen if such a man were never validly elected. And he had good reason for thinking along these lines. Pope Paul IV suspected one of his cardinals, Giovanni Morone, of heresy, for reading forbidden books and associating with Lutheran ministers, among other things, and this prompted him to write Cum ex. Many believed Morone innocent, but Paul IV had him arrested and tried for heresy. The trial lasted for two long years. During that time, Pope Paul IV published two bulls; one on “engaging in intrigues to reach the pontificate” (Artaud de Montor, “Lives and Times of the Popes,”) on Dec. 16, 1558 and the other only two months later  — Cum ex Apsotolatus Officio. De Montor tells us that St. Charles Borromeo so strongly approved of the 1558 bull that he “absolutely declined to talk about the future pope.”

The first bull was most likely written after Paul IV realized his health was failing, for he died the same year Cum ex…was written. Seeing that sympathy was mounting for Morone and support gathering for his exoneration and future election; knowing he would be a likely candidate, the pope took the appropriate precautions. (This provision can still be found today, reflected in Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolica Sedis.) When no verdict came in Morone’s trial, the pope realized there, too, the dangers it would pose to the Church should a man not cleared of heresy be elected. When Paul IV died, Morone, still a prisoner, was released to attend the conclave. At first he was one of three frontrunners, but ran full force into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. Of all people, Hergenrother is reported to have written, in his “The History of the Popes,” that Morone’s campaign was quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.

Now something is very wrong here. Apparently, Hergenrother was well aware of the situation concerning Morone and what prompted it. He either knew or should have known the seriousness of the situation or at least appreciated the fact that Pope Paul IV, whether justified in his eyes or not, saw Morone’s election as a grave threat to the welfare of the Church. Considering the tone of his work on the Christian State, perhaps he felt that Paul IV was too strict and was unpopular for this very reason.  If this was truly the case, and Paul IV was wrong about Morone and too censorious of the clergy, why does the historian Hughes, who had little good to say of him, praise him for beginning what he describes as an almost impossible and very much needed reform of the clergy? And more to the point, why does no one mention the fact that when Cardinal Ghislieri became Pope St. Pius V, not only did he fail to undo the “damage” Pope Paul IV had wrought, but soon after his election he issued the bull “Intermultiplices,” solemnly renewing and confirming Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. If this great saint really believed Pope Paul IV had been remiss in any way in writing Cum ex, or in suspecting Morone, why would he have made this one of the first acts of his papacy? Doesn’t this in itself prove the bull was infallible? Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was both a prophecy and a warning. Its meaning apparently escaped even the very learned, such as Hergenrother was styled to be. But despite its archaic phraseology, the bull is clear on these facts:

1) The pope is taking measures to prevent a heretic from usurping the Chair of Peter, an event he describes as the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place (para. 1); 2) Therefore he renews all censures for all heresies ever in existence “to trap the foxes busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard,” (para. 1);

3) He then very carefully explains how this could happen to various persons, leading up to paragraph six, and precisely what the results of such a catastrophe would be;

4) It is clear from his explanation that in order for these censures to apply to a “pope” (para. 6), such a man would needed to have committed heresy BEFORE his election, invalidating said election, or at least be suspected of doing so (“before they deviated from the faith), became heretics, incurred schism or permitted or encouraged any of these.” This is why even those suspect of heresy (“deviated”) are not qualified as candidates for election, for Cum ex.. is one of the fontes for Can. 2200, which presumes those suspect of heresy guilty until proven innocent.

5) The fact that such an “election” would indeed be invalidated is clearly laid out: even if enthroned and pledged obedience, none of these false popes’ deeds or acts shall have any force; no passage of time shall validate them and they cannot be considered even quasi-legitimate; persons promoted by the one elected will be deprived ipso facto of any dignity, office, honor title and this is to have effect “without exception.”

It is important to pause for a moment here and ask ourselves: was the truth that Cum ex… taught one revealed by God to be accepted by all men as a part of His message? Isn’t the message that Cum ex… really conveys the same as that of the Vatican Council — that Christ’s promise that Peter’s faith will never fail prevents anyone capable of committing heresy in the papal office from having ever ascended to that office validly? The bull says “Should it ever become clear…” that this is the case. Well how else would it become clear that an apparent pope was not validly elected unless his errors somehow became manifest in the course of his teaching, or his heresy, which up to that time would have remained occult, became public knowledge? Paragraph six of this bull deals indirectly with the fact that when a pope is elected, it is assumed that he receives Divine jurisdiction from Christ and assistance from the Holy Ghost to preserve him from error. It assumes he becomes Christ’s Vicar and acts in His stead. How could a law that defines what is a violation of Divine law itself not be intimately bound up with that law? How can this bull, which safeguards Christ’s promise to St. Peter, not be infallible, especially when its premise is based on an interpretation of Holy Scripture?

Cum ex… never taught and could not teach that a man validly elected to the papacy could ever “become” a heretic. The bull notably presumes that should it ever appear to happen that such a man was elected, the election is invalid and he is a usurper. The deviation from faith alone proves they were never fit for the office, for why else would the promotion to office be declared null and void from the beginning? As St. Robert Bellarmine taught, one cannot become the head of an organization when one is not even a member. Pope Pius XII’s papal election law provides that those deposed under Can. 188 no. 4 are not eligible to participate in the conclave. In Church history, Councils have declared clerics deprived of their offices only when they were created by antipopes or those in obedience to them. Cum ex… is the document that set the tenor for all future papal elections concerning even a suspicion of heresy. Only a Roman Pontiff legitimately elected can obtain Divine jurisdiction, (Canons 109 and 219). In a doubt of law, the old law applies. Cum ex … is the old law governing heresy, apostasy and schism, listed in the fontes of Canon Law for these crimes.  It is a law that was waiting for its true fulfillment and application when the Great Apostasy would come to a close, in this our own day and time. That the bull does fit all the requirements for an infallible decree of the extraordinary magisterium, given the solemnity of a bull, is demonstrated below.

Cum ex… per the marks of infallibility defined by the Vatican Council

DZ 1839: The Pope is infallible when:

(A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians.

“The Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms…We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds…lest we come to an evil end like the husbandman…” (para.1). (Pastors teach, among other things – Ed.)

(B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority.

“Now therefore, having thoroughly discussed these matters with Our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, upon their advice and with their unanimous consent, We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal, and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors…” (para. 2).

“Through this Our Constitution, which is to remain forever effective, in hatred of such a crime the greatest and deadliest that can exist in God’s Church, We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect…(all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…” (para. 3).

(C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith and/or morals.

“We must see attentively to driving away from Christ’s fold those who, in Our time more consciously and balefully than usual, driven by malice and trusting in their own wisdom, rebel against the rule of right Faith,” (para. 1).

(D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching.

“The Roman Pontiff, who…judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith,

(para. 1).

“If ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself As… a Roman Pontiff, [who] before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void,” (para. 7).

 (E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.

“No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul,” (para. 7)

Who is the Head of the Catholic Church?

The Head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. Yes the Pope is the visible head of the Church; but Christ is the eternal Head of His Mystical Body. The Mystical Body continues to exist with Christ as its Head and the faithful as its members and will continue to exist until the consummation. The pope is only the visible symbol Christ uses to represent this reality. Christ who placed Peter as head of the Church can certainly withdraw him as its head if He chooses. But this does not destroy the Church that Christ Himself founded and keeps in existence; for He founded it before Peter officially became pope (following the Resurrection). This is the desert(ed) existence that St. John refers to in Apocalypse 12; we have been deserted by the hierarchy as well as our brethren and God has carried us into the desert on the wings of the Holy Ghost, (great eagle), there to speak to us “face to face.” We don’t believe only “homealoners” will be saved; we believe that God knows His own and will take care of them. I do believe that those who have access to the truths of faith and fail to study them, then publicly renounce their errors and do penance are in grave peril of losing their souls. Especially in danger are those who go so far as encouraging others to return to the stench of the vomit-filled anti-church in Rome; “dragging others with them to perdition.”  It is as St. Paul tells us in Holy Scripture: those who do not sufficiently love the truth will be given the operation of error, to believe lies.

Dearest Jesus, please send to us a true Pope!